McVeigh at the McMovies

Hot Tub Time Machine

2010-03-26T10:23:00.000-07:00

So often in life, you rarely know what you are getting. “Green Zone,” “Shutter Island” and “Bounty Hunter?” Too vague.

With a film like “Hot Tub Time Machine” you know exactly what you get. A warm — dare I say hot — tub of water and some sort of time travel, what else do you need to know?

John Cusack (“Pushing Tin”) Rob Corddry (“Harold and Kumar Escape from Guantanamo Bay”) and Craig Robinson (“Pineapple Express”) play three friends who have lost touch with each other over the years, until they are reunited after Corddry suffers a Motley Crue-related accident.

They decide to relive their glory days at the Kodiak Valley ski resort, and they take along Clark Duke, who plays Cusack’s nephew. During their night of debauchery, wires get crossed, energy drinks get spilled and the foursome wakes up 26 years in the past.

Cusack, Corddry and Robinson all have their own memories from Winterfest ’86, and they are tempted to change things for the better. The trio appears to everyone else to be in their early twenties, and Robinson even has the Kid ‘n Play high-top fade.

Each character has his own subplot to carry them through the movie. Cusack is trying to avoid breaking up with his then-girlfriend, Corddry is trying to avoid a beatdown at the hands of the ski patrol and Robinson is trying to make sure his band’s debut show goes smoother than it originally did.

This leaves Duke to try and get the group back to the present. He occasionally fluctuates in and out of existence, so he has a personal stake in making sure the past follows the same path.

The movie combines the inherent cheesiness of the classic 80s movies (many of which Cusack starred in) with the comedy that comes along with meeting people from your past, or in Duke’s case, his mother, who is in the midst of her hard-partying youth.

The group tries almost everything you would try if you went back to the 80s, betting on games you know the outcome of, telling ex-girlfriends how they got fat and so on.

As the three older guys try to atone for their mistakes, the movie has plenty of comedy and even a few touching moments, courtesy of Cusack and a journalist played by Lizzy Caplan (“Cloverfield”).

Cusack is almost there for nostalgia, he doesn’t get too many punch lines, and is really a secondary part of the plot. You may empathize with him more than any of the other characters, but he doesn’t get many laughs.

Cusack might be the heavy hitter when it comes to names, but the movie is really Corddry’s to carry the comedic weight. From his obsession in discovering how the hotel bellhop loses his arm, to his relationship with a certain squirrel at the resort, he wins every scene he’s in.

If you’re serious about the consequences of time travel, this isn’t the movie for you, as you will no doubt find paradox after paradox after the movie winds to its conclusion. But if you went to the movie to see a movie that examines the serious consequences of messing with the space-time continuum, you clearly only read the last two words of the title.

It doesn’t require much brainpower, it doesn’t make you think hard after its over, but that’s sort of the point when you call a movie “Hot Tub Time Machine.” It brings the funny for 100 minutes, and it’s a very entertaining ride.

Rating - $9.50

Visioneers

2010-03-24T16:30:00.000-07:00

Let's get one thing out of the way. I love Zach Galifinakis. And I'm not saying that like someone who has only seen him in The Hangover. I mean it like I've seen his stand-ups (hilarious) and looked through some old movie roles.

Which is what brought me to Visioneers. I saw it under his name on my Netflix, and saw it was available instantly, so one Sunday, I decided to see what it was about.

Wow. That's the first impression. It was categorized under "comedy" on Netflix, and boy is that far from the truth. Further research indicated that it was a "black comedy" which seems to lend more gravitas to the film than it deserves.

The film is a bleak look at a corporate world taken to the extreme. It's Big Brother-ish, but you're not quite sure how serious to take it until later in the film.

Galifinakis plays a mid-level administrator who presides over his cramped, yet spacious room in "Level 3" (of 5, we assume). One of his co-workers recently exploded, as are people all over the place.

Zach finds himself experiencing the symptom of people who have been exploding, namely, dreams.

He also tries to track down a co-worker who he has feelings for, despite having never seen her, and dealing with his wife, who watches boring daytime television all day.

In three paragraphs, I described the extent of almost 45 minutes worth of the movie. Forty-two minutes go by in the movie without a single thing happening, so it's almost a relief when it does.

It is a very visually striking film, everything seems to be placed in the frame to strike an effect, and most shots last long enough (and don't have enough going on) that you can take time to appreciate it.

But thematically, the movie is really weak. I think it tries to make an artistic statement about the banality of modern life, but I'm not sure, and I certainly didn't get it.

It takes the approach that "less is more" and leaves a lot of blank space, which I guess you're supposed to fill with your own awesome, ground-breaking thoughts about modern life, and then transfer them to the movie, therefore thinking that the movie is echoing your thoughts.

Well, my thought's were "When the hell does this movie end?" and I literally counted down almost everyone of the film's 91 minutes.

It is well shot enough to make you think you're watching something artistic and important, but you're just not.

Galifinakis is pretty good, he gets a few laughs, and he fills a whole lot of conversations (especially with women) with silence.

Quite frankly, it's a boring movie, and you keep waiting for something to happen, and though things eventually pick up (slightly) and things get a bit more sinister, the conclusion is extremely unsatisfying, but it fits perfectly with the style of the movie.

High-art people might say "Oh, but you missed the whole point! The movie was boring because it was a statement about how office and modern culture is turning our lives boring!"

Sure, I get that. I also know that "Office Space" said that same thing, only it was actually amusing.

Rating - $2.00

She's Out of My League

2010-03-24T11:04:00.000-07:00

When Bo Derek introduced us to the concept of a “10” in 1979, it brought a ranking system into popular cultures in which people were given a number, one through 10, to describe their attractiveness. More than 30 years later, sets of “rules” have come from the scale, and one such “rule” is what “She’s Out of My League” is based on.

According to a character in the film, one cannot go more than two points above themselves in any relationship. Enter Kirk Kettner, a TSA screener at the Pittsburgh International Airport and a “six” at best.

Baruchel is the latest leading man from the Judd Apatow family tree, much like stars Seth Rogen, Jonah Hill and Jason Segal, Baruchel worked with Apatow in television, then worked as a supporting role in his films, before getting his own project.

He has that same sort of stumbling, awkward style of humor, but with his rail-skinny body and odd hairdos, he’s much more at the nerdy end of the spectrum.

While desperately trying to win back his ex-girlfriend after a two-year split, Kirk meets Molly, an event planner who is a “hard 10.” Molly misplaces her phone, Kirk finds it, and so begins a romance that threatens to turn the world upside down.

Kirk’s friend Stainer (played by T.J. Miller, best known as the cameraman in “Cloverfield”) tells him that the budding relationship is destined to fail, while Kirk’s other friends offer varying stages of bad advice and weak support.

The movie deals with Kirk’s struggle to accept the fact that this beautiful woman is interested in him, and his struggle to prevent the inevitable — her leaving him — from happening.

We get introduced to Molly’s lantern-jawed ex-boyfriend, a jet pilot, as well as Kirk’s family, each of whom serve no other purpose than to constantly remind him of the strangeness of the situation he’s in.

It’s the classic “fall for the nice guy” kind of movie, but it sort of works in this case. Molly is played by British actress Alice Eve, who is very attractive, but she’s also very down-to-earth, so it doesn’t seem like a terrible stretch.

While the story arc is the same as any romantic comedy, the story wins points because it puts the improv-style humor of Miller, Baruchel and others first. They all get time to say their piece, tell their stories at the bowling alley, the bar or wherever else the group finds themselves.

Nate Torrance, who plays Kirk’s portly, married friend Devon, is the gem of the film, he steals quite a few scenes, and in a movie rated “R” for language, his complete refusal to curse is both refreshing and off-putting in a funny way. This, combined with a few funny scenes with Kirk getting ready for his dates, fill out the movie where it could otherwise be filler. By the time the inevitable fight between Kirk and Molly comes and then the race-against-time reconciliation is happening, the movie is just wrapping up.

It makes the movie more of a comedy and less of a romance, which isn’t necessarily a bad thing.

The only problem is that the comedy doesn’t always deliver. They rely on a lot of the same old awkward guy gags that were done much better in films like “The 40-Year-Old Virgin.”

It’s entertaining for sure, but there are large gaps in the funny throughout the picture. Of course it tries to teach the whole “beauty is in the eye of the beholder” thing, but in the end, you walk out of the theater pretty sure that a skinny geek like Kirk couldn’t really get a hottie like Molly.

Rating - $7.50

Extract

2009-09-04T09:00:00.000-07:00

Mike Judge has made a career of creating characters who are perfect caricatures of the people who populate everyday life. In “Office Space” he created a whole cast of them, people who were cartoonish enough to be funny, real enough to become pop-culture staples. If you hear someone end a sentence with “that’d be greeeeat” or slowly say “I’m a Michael Bolton fan” you have that instant flash of recognition.

After all, Judge’s strength has always been about highlighting the most annoyingly idiotic tendencies of us all, mostly to comic effect. So when the trailers for “Extract” started dropping, and the scene had shifted from a white-collar office to a blue-collar factory, it looked like Judge was primed to make another blip on the pop culture radar.

Jason Bateman plays the manager of a factory that manufactured flavor extracts. Stuck in a rut with his wife (Saturday Night Live’s Kristen Wiig), Bateman has his eyes out for a woman who is interested in flavor additives.

Bateman plays the same character that was so well received on television’s “Arrested Development,” a normal character trapped in a world of people too dumb to be real.

His factory is populated with the type of secondary characters that usually make such an impact, but most of them aren’t on screen nearly enough to get big laughs, and the two women with the most lines are too annoying to laugh at.

Bateman finds solace at the local bar, where Ben Affleck serves his cocktails and a sympathetic ear for his problems. After a horse tranquilizer or two enters the mix one night, Bateman sets in motion a chain of events that leaves him fighting to save his marriage.

Like “Office Space,” this movie deals with a man whose dissatisfaction about where his life is going takes a strange turn after an altered state. But in “Extract,” the trouble in Bateman’s marriage takes him away from his place of business, and also shoves many of the goofy characters into the background.

It’s too bad. J.K. Simmons plays Bateman’s second-in-command, and he has far too little screen time. He calls the men at the factory “dinkus” and the women “what’s-her-face” but aside from that funny exchange in the beginning, Simmons isn’t featured nearly enough.
The two secondary plots dance in and out of the film, but they aren’t developed enough to be anymore than afterthoughts. Mila Kunis plays a beautiful con artist, but after a great first scene she only pops in on random occasions and is pretty much irrelevant.

It’s a hard movie to classify. It’s funny, but it’s not going to be quoted by generations of teenagers in the years to come.

Unfortunately, and despite the title, “Extract” seems to be a diluted version of what Judge has made his career doing. The characters are funny, but not that funny. The laughs are there, but they’re not the same quality of laugh.

You’ll probably laugh throughout most of the film’s 90 minutes, but afterwards you’ll be hard pressed to remember the funniest scene, or a specific joke that made you laugh.

Rating - $7.00

G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra

2009-08-07T11:24:00.000-07:00

Unless you’ve been living under a rock this summer, you know about the G.I. Joe movie. Between the massive marketing campaign and the nostalgia held by anyone under the age of 40, it was bound to evoke reaction from people.

Given Hollywood’s spotty history with remakes, plus the noticeable changes to the franchise that are evident in the trailer, it’s easy to assume the worst.

As someone whose toybox was dominated by G.I. Joes (more than thirty of them by my count), I can identify with those who were upset to see the standard camouflage replaced with some sort of robotic suit that seems to put its wearers into the matrix, where the laws of physics don’t apply.

“G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra” is not an action movie, it is THE action movie. From “Star Wars” through “Spiderman,” the influence of every action movie that came before it is evident in every scene.

The dogfights may feature submarines instead of X-Wings, a robotic suit takes the place of a radioactive spider, but the action is very much the same.

The ensemble cast is made up of very talented actors from across the spectrum, from Channing Tatum and Marlon Wayans to Dennis Quaid and Sienna Miller. While they are all talented actors, there are written with hardly more depth than their plastic counterparts.

Tatum is the gung-ho Soldier who is always ready for the next fight. Wayans is his wise-cracking partner with a heart of gold. Dennis Quaid is the grizzled yet vulnerable leader and Miller plays both the scorned lover and the villainess.

The movie piles action cliché on top of action cliché, but it does so in a way that seems more of a tribute than just lazy writing. There is every sort of conflict you can imagine. Childhood rivalries, old lovers’ quarrels and past family drama all come into play through a series of flashbacks.

It’s a very efficient way to inject drama into each battle, but it does so without letting plot get in the way of explosions.

The movie takes place in a world where the laws of physics don’t always apply, a karate fight could break out at any minute and every vehicle has at least a half-dozen missiles attached to it, just in case.

There are very few breaks in the action, another car chases, gun battle or highly choreographed fight is always right around the corner.

While all this is going on, enough plot points are planted for a long run for the franchise, the final scene indicates that a sequel is probably already in pre-production.

A particular highlight of the film is the battles between Snake Eyes and Storm Shadow. Snake Eyes never talks and Storm Shadow probably spends much of his paycheck on throwing stars.
Both martial artists (one always in black, one always in white), they have a personal history going back to their childhood. Their battles are the highlight of the film, even if you can see it coming from a mile away.

In fact, most of the plot can be plotted within the first ten minutes, but that’s not necessarily a bad thing. The money that could have gone to an overcomplicated plot line instead went to some absolutely breathtaking scenes.

G.I. Joe purists who still remember getting their first Snake Eyes action figure might not be on board with the movie and its various liberties with the established characters, but if you’re looking to turn off your brain and watch explosions for two hours, there aren’t many movies better suited for that.

Rating - $8.00

Funny People

2009-07-31T07:05:00.000-07:00

“Funny People” could easily describe the reason for Judd Apatow’s success over the last few years. It’s a simple, but effective formula. Put funny people on screen together, let them have conversations that range from the awkward to the obscene and don’t let the plot get in the way of the people.

In these days of the cookie-cutter romantic comedy or the interracial buddy comedy, it’s
refreshing to watch people that are just plain funny.

Adam Sandler, someone who has starred in many of those same clichés, now takes on a role that is basically a caricature of himself. He plays George Simmons, a once-groundbreaking stand-up comedian, who has earned his fortune by starring in terrible movies. Pay attention to the various movie posters in the background and you can see that Simmons has starred in movies that look so bad they could have been made.

He wakes up every day alone in his mansion, with only his staff to keep him company. But we aren’t meant to get to know the old George Simmons, because five minutes into the film, he learns that he has a rare disease that will more than likely kill him within months.

Living at the other end of the spectrum is Ira Wright, played by Seth Rogen. Rogen is crashing on a couch, working in a deli and trying to make it in the world of stand-up. He takes advantage of the chance to get laughs at Sandler’s expense, and gets a gig writing jokes for him.

Rogen also helps Sandler navigate his illness, encouraging him to tell his friends and family, including the woman that got away, played by Leslie Mann.

The film balances the fine line between comedy and drama, going back and forth between the two often within seconds of each other. There are times when people crying is the funniest part of the scene, and times when things get so real that all you want to hear is a dick joke.

The film comes in at a sturdy two hours, 26 minutes. A little long for anything but an epic, but when you’re first two directorial efforts gross almost $400 million, I guess you can have some leeway.

For a movie of its length, it moves very well. It doesn’t slow down very much, because you don’t know what’s coming next, you’re always on your toes.

The secondary cast is great, with Eric Bana, Jonah Hill and Jason Schwartzman providing a lot of humor at the expense of themselves and the main characters.

Almost every stand-up comedian worth his salt from the ‘90s has a cameo in the film, and while some are more memorable than others (Ray Romano), they add to the texture of the film.

Since Sandler and Apatow were roommates before striking out in different directions (one in front of the camera, one behind), this movie is sort of a "What If?" for them.

The only thing different is that both men are married with children, and one would like to hope both men have more satisfying lives than anyone in the film. I guess it goes to show the stabilizing influence of family.

And for a movie, a director, and actors that have roots in the simple act of telling jokes, that's pretty deep.

Rating - $9.50

Bruno

2009-07-10T12:46:00.001-07:00

Let’s get one thing out of the way first. This is not a family film, nor anything close to it. Regardless of who you see it with, it will make you uncomfortable in several parts throughout the film.

That being said, “Bruno” offers laughs more consistently than actor Sacha Baron Cohen’s last work, “Borat.” The awkwardness is there. The bigotry is on full display. And Cohen, too much of him, is there.

Bruno is a flamboyant host of an Austrian fashion show who loses his credibility when his all-velcro suit leads to a fashion show disaster. Not knowing what to do with his life, Bruno sets his sights on America with an assistant, in order to become a celebrity.

If there’s one thing American can do, is make a celebrity out of people with no discernable talent. Cohen whittles it down to an almost step-by-step guide on how to become a celebrity. Reality shows, controversial statements, illicit video tapes, he tries them all.

Various celebrities make appearances, and it’s clear that most of them are unwitting accomplices to Cohen’s assault. 2008 presidential candidate Ron Paul, singer Paula Abdul and actor Harrison
Ford are all caught on tape, and their reactions range from the confused to the profane.

Ironically, as much as the movie seems to mock celebrity, the real people that come off the worst.

The ignorance displayed by some church offcials, a mixed martial arts audience and a group of hunters, to name a few, is startling. Some of them could be forgiven, for they only crack in the face of Bruno’s onslaught, but others seem perfectly willing to make themselves look like fools with little provocation.

For example, a stage mother offers to get her baby’s weight down from 30 pounds to 20 pounds within a week to get a job. By being so off the wall himself, Cohen allows these people to open up and let out their own faults, and one wonders why on earth they would agree to sign releases to appear in the film.

“Borat” brought about a slew of lawsuits after it became a smash hit, most likely from people trying to cover themselves after the world saw what they had to say, and “Bruno” figures to have similar claims brought against it.

There’s a reason that Cohen isn’t known just as a simple gross-out comedian. Through his caricatures of stereotypes, he is able to unearth something that’s not funny at all: there are people even more ignorant than the characters he plays out there, and unlike Cohen, these people are 100 percent real.

Rating - $9.00

Duplicity

2009-03-27T12:42:00.000-07:00

From the trailers, “Duplicity” seems like “Ocean’s Two,” where Clive Owen and Julia Roberts replace Danny Ocean and his crew in swindling some titan of industry. The first five minutes of the film would lead you to believe the same, with moving split screens, a pseudo-electronic soundtrack and the presence of a sultry Julia Roberts.

Then the opening credits roll, and you get a sense that this movie might be something different. Two jowly men (Paul Giamatti and Tom Wilkinson) spend the entire six-minute sequence wrestling, and the ridiculousness of it all opens up the film right away.

What follows is a movie that shifts between romantic comedy and spy film almost effortlessly, and the star-studded cast of Roberts, Giamatti, Wilkinson and Clive Owen (“Inside Man,” “The International”) pull it off quite nicely.

Owen and Roberts, who meet in the opening scene that takes place a few years before the main action, seem to have an attraction for each other beyond their mutual love of good champagne. The questions of whether or not this attraction is merely a means to accomplishing their mission is what the entire movie hinges upon.

Owen is working for Giamatti’s company, trying to steal a miracle product from Wilkinson’s rival company. And did I mention that Roberts is the head of security for Wilkinson’s company?

It is very interesting to observe two people who are in the business of not trusting anyone, try their hands at a real relationship, and the trust that becomes necessary when you’re in one. Their relationship can be summed up by one of Roberts’ quotes in the movie, “Admit it. You don’t trust me either.”

One of the interesting themes of the movie is how the distrust that comes with espionage is so close to the distrust that relationships can breed. By the end, it has almost become a staring contest between the two, the only question is who will blink first.

Roberts and Owen have a very good give-and-take throughout the film, as it takes almost half an hour for the viewer to know the exact nature of their relationship. As they move forward in the present, flashbacks clue us in, one step at a time, just how these two people got to where they are and what they are doing.

“Duplicity” is one of those films where the viewer doesn’t see everything, plot elements are carefully portioned out when necessary. This can at times be jarring, sometimes it seems as though when the plot is finally picking up, there is another flashback. At first it seems to derail the building suspense, but as we learn more about the characters’ past, we can begin to guess as to where it is going.

The cinematography of the film is different than a standard spy flick. Offices can be as vast as canyons, and cityscapes can feel as claustrophobic as a plastic bag. Many of the more intense scenes are visually striking, whether is it the play of shadows, the view outside of a window or

There are some genuinely funny moments, some painfully awkward moments and moments when everyone but the characters can see what’s about to happen.

On one hand, by combining a romantic comedy with a spy film, one could say the movie tries to do too much, that it spreads itself too thin. On the other hand, it could be seen as an interesting take on the nature of relationships and trust in the most trying of circumstances.

Either way, it keeps you guessing until the last cork is popped, literally. The ending might not satisfy everyone, but the ride is more than worth it.

Rating - $9.00

The International

2009-02-22T12:40:00.000-08:00

Action-thriller movies have taken an interesting turn in the last decade or so. The action is always plentiful, but often the ‘thriller’ aspect is nothing more than a loose end that gets tied up by the end, but its purpose is to give a brief respite from the gunfire and fistfights.

The Bond franchise and even the Bourne movies have crossed that line. They used to be plot driven, with the occasional gunfight or car chase thrown in to show the audience that movies can still make magic.

Now the only break in action is to re-load and slap some bandages on, then it’s right back into the fray. While action seems to always bring in the big bucks, there is something to be said for the old model, where the plot sucks you in, and the action is just icing on the cake.

“The International” follows an older school of action movies, the school that gave us classics such as “Bullitt.” This type of movie doesn’t bludgeon you with over-the-top shootouts or car chases that destroy entire city blocks. Instead, it is like a volcano, slowly building pressure, erupting then the pressure starts building again.

The film is structured around these release points, and it provides a glimpse back to a simpler kind of movie, not the Jerry Bruckheimer explosion-fests, but a true action-thriller, with an emphasis on the thriller.

The premise is simple enough. Clive Owen (“Sin City,” “Inside Man”), an Interpol agent with a checkered past, and Naomi Watts (“King Kong,” “21 Grams”), a New York District Attorney with everything to lose, team up to bring down an international bank that is suspected of brokering conflicts around the world and profiting off them.

The bank is the classic shadow organization, with people everywhere, and you never know who might be working for them. A quick assassination at the beginning of the film, and the subsequent response by the authorities shows everything you need to know about how far this bank’s reach is.

Owen seems to be at his best when he plays someone that needs to act rather than mull options. His character’s shady past is hinted at, and that’s really all you need to find his motivation. He does a good job as the “wild card,” a role that has been missing from movies since Clint Eastwood’s Dirty Harry.

Rather than constant explosions, the movie features terse, intense conversations where everyone is lying, and everyone else in the room knows that. It is a remarkable way to ratchet up the tension without being overwhelming. There are also plenty of good, but slightly trite, one-liners, which add nicely to the vintage feel of the movie.

Parts of the plot are predictable, as they are in any action movie. There are subtle references to classics such as “The Godfather” and “Reservoir Dogs” that don’t leap of the screen, but they are there. The combination of cliché and intrigue make the film familiar yet fresh in an interesting way.

And then there is the shootout. A good shootout can make a bad movie better, and conversely, make a good movie worse. In this case, the seven-minute apocalypse that takes place in New York’s Guggenheim Musuem, it’s one for the ages.

What makes it better is that you don’t see it coming. What is supposed to be an eavesdrop on a meeting turns into a full fledged masterpiece of a shootout. The architecture of the museum lets the action breathe, as well as provide many different props for the characters to shoot at.

The movie’s problem becomes apparent as it starts winding down. Without spoiling anything, the film just kind of trails off in a whimper. It’s as if the producers had a few plot points and the idea for the shootout, and decided that it was enough.

Which begs the age-old question: is it about the destination or the journey? While the journey is very satisfying, by the time you get to the destination, you can’t help but look back and wonder, as The Strokes did in 2001,“Is this it?”

Rating - $8.50

Paul Blart: Mall Cop

2009-01-23T12:36:00.000-08:00

When trailers for “Paul Blart: Mall Cop” started hitting the airwaves in late December, they didn’t exactly put members of the Academy on notice. The tale of an overweight mall cop who takes his job too seriously doesn’t seem like it would resonate too deeply come awards season. And it won’t.

But it is a comedy that provides good, clean laughs for what it offers, and sometimes that’s all it takes to make a decent movie. What starts as a standard dumb famly comedy evolves into a decent send-up of the over-the-top ‘80’s action movies.

Kevin James plays the rotund title character, a mall security guard who enjoys peanut butter on his pie and harbors dreams of being a real cop, channeling that ambition into his mall security job. A single parent, his daughter and mother spend their time trying to find him a girlfriend via an online dating site.

The role is similar to the one that made him famous, in “The King of Queens,” with Jayma Mays playing the part of the attractive woman that is inexplicably attracted to him.

The most serious part of the film is the opening credits, when a “JFK-“ like theme plays over close-ups of a mall security badge. From there it devolves into slapstick comedy, jokes so bad they’re funny and other staples of mediocre comedies.

The plot of the film is incredibly cliché, with the single-parent James falling for the doe-eyed woman who works at the wig kiosk, and he is forced to save her when she is taken hostage by the terrorists who take over the mall.

While the plot has more holes in it than , the jokes are solid. James provides the best segway humor since Will Arnett in “Arrested Development,” and he can take a pratfall with the best of them.

Since the movie is rated PG, it provides laughs without the nudity and profanity that so many comedies of late rely so heavily upon.

The villains are a group of terrorists who, for some reason, prefer to skate, leap or bike their way around the mall, and very rarely do they use their guns. The terrorists are so hackneyed at times that it’s painful to watch.

The supporting cast mostly drags down the movie, with the exception of Stephen Ranna zzisi, who plays a pen salesman in the mall. He draws laughs every time he is on the screen, and he is the perfect obnoxious foil to Kevin James’ goodhearted nature. Think of him as the Ellis character from “Die Hard.”

Throughout the course of the movie, James becomes a combination of John McClane and Rambo. Except in this case, the Nakatomi Tower has been replaced with the West Orange Pavilion Mall and the Vietnamese jungle is the Rainforest Café.

In a world of gross-out comedies, “Paul Blart” shows that you don’t need f-bombs or nudity to get laughs. Sometimes a fat man on a Segway running into the back of a minivan will do just fine.

Rating - $6.00

The Day the Earth Stood Still

2008-12-19T12:34:00.000-08:00

If you think Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth” showed the danger of polluting the planet, you haven’t seen anything yet.

“The Day the Earth Stood Still,” the big-budget remake of the 1951 sci-fi classic, replaces the fear of nuclear apocalypse with the consequences of our effect on the environment.

The cheesy charm of the old version has been replaces with the typical nuances of a blockbuster: computer animation and product placements aplenty. Appropriately enough, the fate of humanity is decided under the golden arches.

The iconic Klaatu is played by (gulp) Keanu Reeves, who actually seems to be at home playing a creature that isn’t quite sure how to be human.

Jennifer Connelly plays Dr. Helen Benson, who for some reason is more qualified than anyone to deal with the incoming aliens. Perpetually glassy-eyed, she always looks on the edge of breaking down completely.

Jaden Smith, son of actor Will Smith, plays Connelly’s stepson, and the two are still dealing with the loss of Smith’s father. The trio of Reeves, Connelly and Smith form a Terminator-Sarah Connor-John Connor kind of relationship, where destruction and salvation walk hand in hand.

The first hour of the movie is a masterful exercise in building suspense. The viewer is a character in the movie, as we follow Connelly from a late night trip into a government headquarters, where we learn about an imminent threat to the earth.

The special effects are very well done. When a mysterious orb appears in Central Park, the audience is standing right next to the confused New Yorkers witnessing something that humankind has never experienced.

The supporting cast is star-studded, included Kathy Bates as the Secretary of Defense and John Cleese as an eccentric astrophysicist. While the movie is essentially a three-person show, the other actors hold up their part nicely.

The movie’s failing is that is digs itself too deep in the suspense, and doesn’t know quite how to get itself out. When it hits its peak after the first hour, it doesn’t know where to go, so it tries to back out with computer-generated effects.

The movie is almost worth seeing in the theater, because a large screen and digital sound heighten the atmosphere at the beginning of the film. But whether or not $10 is worth an hour or so of good special effects is up to you.

Rating - $6.00

Role Models

2008-11-07T12:32:00.000-08:00

While Judd Apatow’s modus operandi of late is to bookend the summer with movies that gross over $100 million, that doesn’t stop his troupe of actors from acting in their own films. Paul Rudd (“The 40 Year Old Virgin”) and Seann William Scott (“American Pie”) are two of those actors, and they perform the typical roles in “Role Models.”

Rudd plays the typical sensitive guy who is so devastated by the end of his relationship that he loses control. Scott plays a typical hard partying, womanizing guy that he has cashed so many checks as. Rudd is clean shaven and wears collared shirts, while Scott is stubbled and wears MMA shirts.

While the casting offers nothing new for either actor, there is a reason that they continue to play these roles. They are very good at them. Maybe even more importantly, they have the timing down with each other that they can constantly produce laughs.

Add in the usual cast, such as Jane Lynch (“Best in Show”) and Christopher Mintz-Plasse (“Superbad”) and it’s hard not to chuckle as they riff off of each other.

The plot isn’t anything fancy, and it doesn’t have to be. Rudd, distraught over his break-up decides to play tug of war with his company’s vehicle and a tow truck, while a police officer looks on. This lands the duo in a predicament: go to jail for 30 days, or spend 150 hours mentoring troubled youth.

Rudd is assigned to Mintz-Plasse, who brings back his McLovin persona in all its awkward glory. Scott is assigned a rowdy child with a filthy mouth played by cinematic newcomer Bobb’e J. Thompson.

The story gets very trite from here on out, with both men initially dreading their service, before coming to enjoy their assigned punishment. There is the obligatory moment where it all comes crashing down (with a high-voiced, acoustic guitar playing singer singing a mournful tune on the background of course), and then the rest of the movie is spent rebuilding.

What keeps it fresh is the interaction between the characters. Whether it is a camping trip, or a weekend spent participating in a medieval role-playing game, the characters always find time to exchange snide remarks.

Basically the whole movie plays out like an Apatow-inspired remake of “Problem Child” which is an intriguing possibility. The movie is much funnier than the few cheap laughs played in the trailer, and while it won’t be making a dent this awards season, it is a great way to spend two hours.

Whether it is worth your ten dollars, well, that depends on your sense of humor.

Rating - $8.50

Ghost Town

2008-09-26T12:29:00.000-07:00

Most Americans are unfamiliar with the name Ricky Gervais. Maybe you’ve seen his name as a producer under NBC’s “The Office,” even though he created the original version. Maybe you’ve seen the Simpsons where Marge and Homer swap spouses on a reality show, which was written by Gervais.

Now he is thrust into his first leading role in a film, and the result is a movie that doesn’t quote know what to do with him.

Weapons in Gervais’ arsenal include the best comic timing on the planet, as well as the ability to be both irritating yet charming. He plays Bertram Pincus, a dentist who cares little for people and less for their trivial natures.

After a colonoscopy that leads to seven minutes of death, Pincus finds himself with ability to see and hear the ghosts that populate lower Manhattan.

The film operates under the “Casper Rules” of ghosts, that is they are ghosts because they have unfinished business. When they look to the one person who can actually hear them, Pincus becomes inundated with requests from these ghosts to help them.

The pushiest of these specters is played by Greg Kinnear, an adulterer in life who is damned to do nothing but play Tetris on his ghostly BlackBerry and watch as the wife he cheated on plans to get remarried.

He offers Pincus an offer he can’t refuse, respite from the other ghosts, and the plot is set in motion. The plot works well because Gervais is at his best when trying to extract himself from awkward situations, often of his own making. Imagine a man carrying on conversations with people only he can see, and you’ll appreciate the situations he finds himself in.

Gervais could hold a dialogue with a brick wall and make it funny, so when he’s bouncing his zingers off of people like Kinnear, SNL’s Kristen Wiig and others, the conversation crackles.
The film starts out looking like a new spin on the standard romantic comedy, but as the plot progresses, it quickly falls back into the standard mold.

In the process of breaking up her marriage, Pincus falls for Kinnear’s wife, played by Tea Leoni. As the independent, yet feminine woman, she is quickly able to penetrate Pincus’ shell, and he begins to fall for her.

As their relationship progresses, the movie becomes more and more formulaic, which slowly strips it of its charm. Gervais’ jokes are tossed under the rug, the rug being the standard story about the guy falling for girl, the guy has a secret, the girl gets upset when he reveals it.

Just before the movie falls completely into generic oblivion, the ending twists in a way that brings back its originality. Aside from the 20 minutes of schlock, it maintains its freshness.

There are quite a few moments that set the film apart from the standard romantic comedy. No spoilers here, but to watch a ghost try to encourage the man who is giving his recently deceased body CPR is a funny moment at what could be an awkward scene.

Overall, the movie is well worth seeing. If you appreciate the subtle nuances of awkward comedy, Gervais is your man. While the movie flirts with a cookie-cutter comedy, it is Gervais and his co-stars that are able to return it from the brink.

Rating - $9.00

Pineapple Express

2008-08-08T12:21:00.000-07:00

If this summer has taught us anything (besides the fact that comic-book movies are back for good), it’s that the name Judd Apatow practically guarantees a blockbuster.

“Pineapple Express” is no exception. Effortlessly combining the stoner genre with an action-packed thriller, the film manages to pay tribute to both while staying original.

The plot, while it won’t be putting Tarantino out of business any time soon, does what it needs to. That is, put Apatow’s usual cast of cronies is as many improv-inducing situations as possible.

Whether it is Seth Rogen and James Franco waxing about their newfound friendship, or Gary Cole and Rosie Perez alternating their desires for each other with murderous impulses, the film has enough give-and-take to make anyone crack up.

As a twenty-something process server with an 18-year-old girlfriend, Rogen requires massive amounts of cannabis to get through his day.

His dealer (Franco) is the closest thing he has to a friend, which is the reason Rogen hides at his place after witnessing a murder.

The addition of action allows Seth Rogen to flex his acting muscles, and he does a passable job of being furious, scared to death or overcome by emotion.

The comedy is also much more phycisal than previous Apatow films. There is plenty of witty back-and-forth, but there are slapstick scenes that are done with such reality that it makes the viewer laugh and cringe at the same time.

It seems that every Apatow move brings another potential comic superstar to the forefront. Last year it was McLovin, this year is Red. Played by the previously unknown Danny McBride, the invincible Red steals almost every scene he’s in.

When you consider he’s trading lines with as many established actors as there are in the film, his performance is even more impressive.

Almost every bit player in a Christopher Guest, Adam McKay or Apatow flick is given their zingers, and the result is a comedy that feels very familiar, but new at the same time.

There is plenty of gore, plenty of violence and more than enough f-words, but the film shows just how easy it is to make a funny movie when you cast funny people. The sense of comic timing between all the cast members is excellent, and the lines that are in the cutting room floor must be just as good.

It even resists the temptation to become a straight spoof of the action genre. It uses a few clichés, but only in carefully measured doses.

Quite simply, if you want to see a funny, obscene movie featuring funny, obscene people, then this movie hits the spot.

Rating - $10.00

X-Files: I Want to Believe

2008-08-01T12:18:00.000-07:00

“The X-Files” remains one of the staples of ‘90s television. It was ahead of its time, existing in the decade before shows like “Arrested Development,” “Heroes” and “The Wire” were meant to be released on DVD, so crucial plot points wouldn’t be missed.

The show combined the police drama of “CSI,” the occult parts of “Lost” and the back and forth banter of “Bones” before such things even existed.

“The X-Files: I Want to Believe” brings Special Agents Fox Mulder and Dana Scully into the world of BlackBerrys and Google.
Six years after the series ended, we find the two agents have taken their lives in different directions, directions that don’t involve the FBI or the X-Files themselves.

Sure, Mulder is a little more jowly and Scully’s hair is blonder than the signature auburn bob that she wore during the show’s nine-year run. But the signature give-and-take between the two hasn’t lost a step, and the familiar roles of Mulder as the believer and Scully the skeptic return pretty quickly.

As soon as the five signature notes of the theme song are played and the familiar type crawls across the bottom-left corner of the screen, it won’t fail to bring nostalgia to any fan of the show.

The alien conspiracy is the 900-pound gorilla in the room, and it is dismissed quickly in the movie, allowing it to be a “monster-of-the-week” plot which can stand alone from the show.

In this day of trailers that show the ten best lines in the film, director Chris Carter kept the plot completely under wraps. This allows the viewer to go into the movie not knowing what to expect, which is a rarity in today’s cinema.

Fans of the suspense genre will enjoy the film, even if some references to the show will go unnoticed. The main plot moves along fairly quickly, but it is a little bogged down by a subplot involving Scully and her medical profession.

Gillian Anderson reprises her role very well, she is able to portray Scully’s delicate emotional state with a minimum of words, allowing her face to give a window to her mind.

David Duchovny, despite his wish to leave the series before it ended, seems like he is glad to be back to his signature role. He hasn’t lost a bit of the wry humor of Fox Mulder, and his dedication to his work that consumed him in the show comes back with a vengeance.

The supporting cast, which includes rapper Alvin “Xzibit” Joiner, Billy Connelly (“The Last Samurai”) and Amanda Peet (“Syriana”), lets Mudler and Scully take control, but they add to the film’s depth. Each one has at least one scene where they steal the focus, and this helps the film get beyond just a simple television remake.

Unfortunately, fans curious about the status of Mulder and Scully’s relationship won’t get any concrete resolution, as the film raises more questions than it answers on the subject.

At 105 minutes, the movie isn’t too long, but if the reintroductions and subplot were taken out, it would fill a normal episode of the show.

The big question with any silver screen adaptation of the television show is how it will play to both the show’s fans and the casual moviegoer.

Fans of the show should not miss the movie, even if they got tired of the alien conspiracy that dominated the later seasons. The prospect of Mulder and Scully working together on a case that defies explanation is too good to pass up.

Rating - $7.50

Step Brothers

2008-07-25T12:15:00.000-07:00

With the hype vacuum created by the release of “The Dark Knight”, Will Ferrell’s latest has slipped somewhat under the radar.

By the time award season rolls around, critics and audiences alike should have recognized the brilliance of this story of two grown men experiencing life, love and happiness while trying to be loved by a world that isn’t ready for them.

Okay, maybe that’s going a little too far. Rather, “Step Brothers” is a comedy in the vein of Ferrell’s other movies such as “Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy” and “Old School.”
His co-pilot on this magic carpet ride is John C. Reilly (“Walk Hard: The Dewey Cox Story,” “Chicago”), making this the duo’s second pairing after “Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby.”

Both of them are six-year-old children (although ones that wear Pablo Cruise and “Star Wars” t-shirts) trapped in grown-up bodies.

Unlike “Talladega Nights,” this movie doesn’t operate under the guise of a family flick, it earns its ‘R’ rating. Any time the plot threatens to get serious on us, something ridiculous or obscene happens, which keeps the laughs coming.

The script was penned by Ferrell and Adam McKay, who teamed up for “Anchorman” and “Talladega Nights.” McKay also directed.

Ferrell and Reilly play two 40-year-old men (virgins?) who still live with their mother and father respectively. When the two parents get married, the bliss of their childish worlds suddenly changes.

Mary Steenburgen (“What’s Eating Gilbert Grape”) plays Ferrell’s mother, and Richard Jenkins (“Six Feet Under”) plays Reilly’s father. They create good screen chemistry with each other as well as Ferrell and Reilly.

Though the fact that they both have sons still living at home initially attracts them to one another, it soon becomes apparent that the arrangement won’t work.

The movie takes on the feel of an extended “Saturday Night Live” skit, which isn’t a bad thing. There is a reason why Ferrell was its highest paid cast member.

There are entire scenes which consist of nothing but traded insults between Reilly and Ferrell. It is clear that everyone involved in the movie had a great time filming it, and it becomes contagious.

Yes, it features Ferrell going to another level with his signature nudity. It also contains arguably the most awkward first kiss and brotherly hug in film history. Viewers will never be able to take the Guns ‘N’ Roses tune “Sweet Child o’ Mine” seriously again either.

It’s not ground-breaking, it’s not a cinematic tour-de-force, but it is a raunchy, funny movie, and it doesn’t try to be anything more than that.

If there is any lasting lesson to be taken, it’s that no matter how tough things get, there are always crossbows and Chewbacca masks to make it all better.

Rating - $10.00

The Incredible Hulk

2008-06-13T12:13:00.000-07:00

The first thing prospective viewers of “The Incredible Hulk” will be asking themselves is what the film’s relation is to Ang Lee’s disaster, 2003’s “Hulk.”

Fortunately, the first film is never mentioned, and the Hulk’s origin is explained in the three-minute opening credit sequence. The events are not the same as in the first movie, indicating that this film is an entirely new reboot for the green-skinned hero.

Screenwriter Zak Penn (“PCU,” X-Men 2,” “X-Men: The Last Stand”), no stranger to the comic book movie, penned the script with help from Edward Norton. The result is a script that is closer to the comics and original television show than the previous film.

Norton fills the title role this time, and his acting chops lend a little more depth to Dr. Bruce Banner. Banner lives his life trying to control his heart rate, because anything over 200 beats per minute will unleash his monstrous alter ego.

Playing his love interest Betty Ross, is Liv Tyler. Best known for her glassy eyed stare and quivering lower lip, she was tailor made to play the torn, wounded love interest of Banner.

The film opens to find Banner working in a soda bottling plant in a third-world country, taking anger management in order to manage his ‘incidents.’

When he is eventually tracked down, the story uses the patented “Cloverfield” method of showing glimpses of the monster, in order to build the tension (previously known as the “Jaws” method).

In addition to “Cloverfield,” the film’s opening chase scene strongly resembles one from the blockbuster, “The Bourne Ultimatum.” While there is nothing wrong with films paying tribute to one another, when the references are to smash hits that have come out less than a year ago, it tends to make one cynical.

Many elements of nostalgia from the television show are present, including the famous piano theme from the closing credits, and a brief appearance by Lou Ferrigno.

The film also makes it clear that it is part of the Marvel comics universe. There are several references to Tonty Stark, the main character from “Iron Man.”

The bread and butter of superhero movies, the fight scenes, are incredible. While the Hulk fighting his human pursuers is somewhat entertaining, it’s the fight with The Abomination at the end

Despite its cast improvement over its predecessor, the movie seems unsure of its own worth. Three of the biggest movies in the last nine months are referenced, and the result is a movie that seems unsure of itself.

The film’s strength lies in its narrative. Since the first half of the movie isn’t wasted with an origin story, a full story can develop. As successful as superhero movies become, the first half of the first movie in series can be taken up by the origin, and it strains the narrative when the stories must be juggled.

The film’s conclusion just seems to taper off into nothing, and while ground is laid for the sequel; the viewer is left unsure of the fate of several key characters.

While not quote the savior to the genre that “Iron Man” was (and maybe it’s unfair to compare the two, but Marvel chose to release them within a month of each other), the film is another step in the right direction.

It takes another step towards creating The Avengers, a superhero group that consists of the Hulk and Iron Man, as well as Captain America, Thor and others. But rather than phone in the film in anticipation of an epic Avengers film, “The Incredible Hulk” lays a good foundation for both sequels and crossovers.

Rating - $8.00

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull

2008-05-23T12:11:00.000-07:00

When word came out that a fourth installment of Indiana Jones was on its’ way, people were understandably skeptical. After all, the last trilogy George Lucas updated didn’t turn out so well.

The fact that Steven Spielberg is at the helm of this picture offers some reassurance.
Harrison Ford, 65, reprises one of his iconic roles as Indiana Jones, professor of Archaeology by day, international adventurer by night. Ford trades in his watch and pension for his trademark fedora and bullwhip.

In “Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull,” nineteen years have passed since the last movie. The film immediately thrusts the viewer into the world of the 1950’s, courtesy of Elvis Aaron Presley’s “Hound Dog,” which was at the top of the charts around the time of the movie.

Gone are the Nazi scientists searching for the power to conquer the world. Replacing them are the Cold War-era Russians searching for the power to conquer the world.

Cate Blanchett (“The Aviator”) plays a Russian colonel who is obsessed with the possibilities offered by psychic warfare. While her accent falters at times, she does very well playing the evil-yet-seductive women that Indy seems to always come in contact with.

Shia LeBeouf (“Transformers,” “Disturbia”) plays a James Dean-style greaser, complete with leather jacket and motorcycle. He nervously combs his hair, doesn’t back down from anything, and does all the other things that round out the characters from “Grease” and “West Side Story” among others.

The character of George “Mac” McHale, played by Ray Winstone (“The Departed,” “Beowulf”) seems to be a last minute addition, a double-, triple- and quadruple- agent who is a shadow, passing in and out of the narrative without leaving any sort of lasting impression. Winstone plays his part well, but the writing for his character just isn’t up to snuff.

The movie continuously beats you over the head with the fact that it takes place in the fifties. The presence of Nazis in the previous films made it clear when the previous films were taking place, they didn’t go out of their way to reinforce the fact that it takes place in the forties.
All the varsity jackets, pleated skirts, Everly Brothers’ tunes and milkshakes with multiple straws in them serve to make this film a nostalgia piece, which doesn’t jive with the spirit of the original movies.

Indiana Jones was based on the adventurers from the early part of the 20th century who existed in pulp magazines with serialized stories that played out from week to week.

The movie’s main weakness is that the film seems content in simply bringing back the nostalgia of the previous films, without adding anything new.

Ford looks very fit for his age, and the script doesn’t take it easy on him in terms of stunts. If it weren’t for LeBeouf calling him ‘gramps’ constantly, his age wouldn’t even be relevant.

The movie wants to emphasize the obvious age distance between LeBeouf and Ford, even to its’ own detriment. While the serial adventurers that Indy is based on were always timeless, this film seems determined to make him a dinosaur.

While it might save us another two movies, making a second trilogy (like Star Wars), this ageism really takes away from what could have been just another classic Indiana Jones adventure. Lucas and Co. seems resigned to the fact that Indy is past his prime and the movie is going to appeal to fans of the franchise.

Maybe it was the universal panning of his new Star Wars trilogy that made Lucas and his team so gun-shy, or maybe he just doesn’t have the energy to throw himself into a new epic.

Either way, the film is entertaining. It’s too bad the producers didn’t go for a home run, they seemed content with hitting a single, albeit a single that will net hundreds of millions of dollars.
The vibe is there, but the insistence on reminding the viewer that Dr. Jones is the old man and LeBoeuf is the young turk just gets old, pardon the pun.

Anyone who liked any of the previous films will undoubtedly want to see it, and maybe will even enjoy the film. It’s just a little sad to see the bar set so low.

Rating - $7.00

Narnia: Prince Caspian

2008-05-16T12:09:00.000-07:00

“Prince Caspian” begins with Peter, Edmund, Susan and Lucy (Pevensie is their surname, by the way) struggling with the real world after having been kings and queens of Narnia.

It has been a year since they came back through the wardrobe to the real world. As suddenly as they left Narnia, they are returned, as an Underground station quickly turns into a beach on the shores of Narnia.

While a year has passed for the Pevensie siblings, 1300 years have passed in Narnia. Imagine the changes that our world has undergone in 1300 years, and you can imagine the unfamiliar territory Narnia has become.

Gone is the Golden Age of Narnia that followed the demise of the White Witch in “The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe.” A race called the Telmarines has destroyed almost all of what made Narnia a magical place.

The Telmarines are based on the Spanish Conquistadors that imposed their will over much of North America. Like their Earth counterparts, the Telmarines have killed off most Narnians, relegating the survivors to an underground existence in the forest.

The title character finds himself in a Hamlet-like predicament, his father is recently deceased, and his uncle Miraz now sits on the throne. When Miraz’s wife gives birth to a son, Caspian suddenly becomes expendable.

Only the sudden intervention of Caspian’s tutor Cornelius allows him to escape into the woods, where he encounters the banished Narnians.

Miraz is played with a certain swarthy charm by Italian actor Sergio Castellitto. Castellitto does a fantastic job of playing a Cortez-style conquistador who is willing to do anything to keep the crown. He is a fearsome villain that brings all the savagery of “300’s” King Leonidas to the film.

The Pevensie children are played by the same actors and actresses from the previous film. As Edmund, Skandar Keynes pushes his character to the front of almost every scene. While Edmund was a major character in the first film, he takes a back seat to the other siblings for this one.

It is a credit to Keynes’ screen presence that he is able to draw attention even in a reduced role. His dry British wit steals every scene it’s in, and his mix of courage and dourness make Edmund a character worth observing.

Harry Gregson-Williams (“Team America,” Kingdom of Heaven”) composed a transcendent score for the movie. He is able to provide accompaniment to a chase through the woods or a sneak attack on a castle that conveys the tension of the moments in many different ways.
The score is so effective that the few moments of silence seem to be the loudest, most intense of the film.

Due to the epic nature of the C.S. Lewis book on which the movie is based, there is no shortage of battles and confrontations. The Christian theology that is so omnipresent in the novels is very much a part of this film.

The struggle between differing ideologies, whether it be between Caspian and Peter or the Narnians and Telmarines, is shown in a way that the audience is clear on who is right and who is wrong.

The movie’s gravity and epic feel is slowly undone by its reliance on slapstick humor. With so many talking animals populating Narnia, the filmmakers cannot resist the “Alvin and the
Chipmunks” humor that seems to fill most family films.

While this can be excused at the beginning, when things remain light, the shtick laid in ever thicker as the movie progresses. Almost every significant moment towards the end is tainted by a cheap throwaway attempt at a laugh.

In addition to robbing the film of its epic nature, the jokes slowly eat away at some great acting performances. The hour and a half spent making Miraz a dangerous character is nullified by five minutes of lame jokes right before what should be an epic battle between him and Peter.

Lewis’ saga is supposed to be one of the great mythologies of Western literature. The books succeeded in putting Christian themes in an epic fantasy narrative that stands up with or without the religious context.

If the movies continue to make talking animals make cheap jokes, not only does this take away from Narnia’s legacy, it does a disservice to all fans of the novels who want to see Lewis’ vision brought to the silver screen.

Rating - $5.50

Iron Man

2008-05-09T12:07:00.000-07:00

It has become just another Hollywood contrivance. Make a superhero movie and spend money on special effects, not the script. The movie then pulls in $100 million based on the built in fans of the comic.

Everything the “Spider-Man” and “X-Men” movies accomplished for the superhero genre were soon undone by the “Fantastic Four,” “Hulk,” “Daredevil,” “Ghost Rider” and “Elektra” movies that tried to CGI their way past their narrative shortcomings. If you’re wondering when the term CGI became a verb, it was

“Iron Man” is a return to glory for the superhero franchise. While not as much as a household name as Spiderman, Iron Man is still one of the marquee characters in the Marvel universe. He has also never been represented on film, save for a straight-to-DVD cartoon adventure.

The film is the first of Marvel’s movies to be financed by Marvel Studios, and it gives hope that they are paying closer attention to the product that carries their name.

One of Iron Man’s fundamental appeals is the fact that he has no “super powers.” There was no exposure to radiation, nor was he born with any special abilities. All of his powers come from his own mind, from the suit of armor that he has designed for himself.

Most superhero movies cast actors on their way up. Tobey Maguire, Eric Bana and most of the ‘X-Men’ cast used their roles to transition from working actor to superstar. This is what makes Robert Downey Jr. an interesting choice for Iron Man and his alter ego, Tony Stark.

Stark is a work-hard, play-hard weapons contractor who has no sleepless nights due to the nature of his business. It helps that he is often accompanied to bed by a beautiful woman and expensive whiskey.

Sooner or later we all have to pay the piper, and Tony Stark is no exception. His convoy is attacked in the Middle East and he is captured by terrorists intent on having him design their next superweapon. Instead of a missile, Stark develops a prototype of his iron suit.

Stark’s captivity teaches him a lesson about what exactly his weapons do, and he vows to change the effect he has on the world.

It is a testament to Downey’s acting chops that he is able to pull off the transition from a witty yet unlikable weapons contractor to a genuine superhero. Unlike many superhero movies, the story actually shows the changes in Stark, rather than just tells you that he has changed.

Gwyneth Paltrow plays his secretary Pepper Potts. She plays the part well, she is attractive but not gorgeous, and she has just a hint of the neurotic, insecure woman character that she is so well known for.

A bald Jeff Bridges plays the film’s villain, Obadiah Stane. Besides having a great name, Stane is a good villain, ruthless in the boardroom and on the battlefield. One of the things that kept Iron Man from seeping into the general comic book landscape was the lack of notable villains. Bridges does a good job of bringing a credible threat to Iron Man.

The Fantastic Four had Dr. Doom, the X-Men had Magneto, Superman had Lex Luthor. It could be argued that the most famous superheroes (Spider-Man, Batman, Superman, X-Men) were so successful because of the myriad of memorable villains they had to face.

Second-tier superheroes like Iron Man, Captain America and Daredevil do not face quite the same caliber of villains. Since there are already two more “Iron Man” sequels in the works, the producers would do well to put time and effort into creating notable villains.

A major strength of this film is it leaves the viewer wanting more. There is not much CGI, which allows the film to rely on the narrative and the dialogue. There are only a few scenes with Iron Man in his armor, which whets the audience’s appetite for possible sequels.

The major weakness of the film is that almost half of its 126 minutes is taken up with Iron Man’s origin. While this makes a strong foundation for future movies, it doesn’t help when “Iron Man 2” is still at least two years away.

If you do see this movie in the theatre, make sure you stay until the credits run out. There is a short teaser that features an expected but welcome cameo.

The movie is well worth seeing, and there are enough subtle nuances to invite repeated viewings. Stan Lee makes his best cameo in a Marvel film yet. Hopefully this is a sign that studios will no longer be content with churning out mindless superhero movies, but rather will take the time and effort required to bring these print heroes to life.

Rating - $10.00

Harold and Kumar Escape from Guantanamo Bay

2008-05-02T12:04:00.000-07:00

The movie "Harold and Kumar go to White Castle" promised in its final moments a sequel in which the pair head to their nirvana, Amsterdam. Since this movie is called “Harold and Kumar Escape from Guantanamo Bay,” we are left to wonder what went wrong.

The film opens to find the drug-addled duo, hunger satisfied, planning their next move. After a quick shower from Harold and a trip to the bathroom from Kumar (at the same time in the same bathroom, they are nothing if not efficient), they are ready to board an international flight.

Amsterdam is the destination, besides the legal drugs, there is a hot neighbor for Harold to track down. Even the best laid plans can run afoul, as a battery powered piece of drug paraphernalia leads to the two being arrested as terrorists.

It becomes apparent in the first few minutes that the film is raising the bar on the crude humor its predecessor was based on. Human and animal defecation provides the punch line to several early jokes.

Enter Daily Show alumnus Rob Corddry as a bigoted government bureaucrat with questionable personal hygiene. While he is a caricature of any sort of real person, in the farcical world of Harold and Kumar he is a funny and formidable foe.

Alliteration (and assonance) aside, the movie provides a deeper look into Harold and Kumar. The first film showed Harold’s insecurities while painting Kumar as an underachiever concerned only with his next bong hit.

This film delves a little deeper into who both characters are, including a scene of what the dyad were like pre-cannabis. A love interest for Kumar is also introduced, making him a slightly more dynamic character.

While the movie isn't in any danger of being an Oscar sleeper, it does have a coherent plot structure. Besides the conflict between the twosome and Corddry, tension build throughout the film between the two

A believable conflict between Harold and Kumar, as well as between them and the government guides the movie through its various funny scenes.

Of course, no Harold and Kumar movie would be complete without the obligatory Neil Patrick Harris appearance. Harris’ scene in the first film has shaped his legacy to anyone born after “Doogie Howser, M.D.” NPH's perversions in this film manage to climb to another level, including a memorable farewell.

Between drug humor and full frontal nudity the movie does have a message about the inaccuracy of stereotypes and the dangers of racism. The pair encounters a tobacco-chewin’ redneck who happens to live in a modern ranch house with a beautiful wife. Of course, for comedic purposes all isn’t as it seems, but the point gets across.

Anyone looking for a poetic and epic story of man’s redemption over circumstances that threaten to destroy him should probably search elsewhere. Anyone looking for 102 minutes of a crude buddy comedy that isn’t too taxing on the noggin, will find this movie very enjoyable.

Rating - $10.00

Where in the World is Osama bin Laden?

2008-04-11T11:59:00.000-07:00

With the birth of his first child approaching, Morgan Spurlock (of “Super Size Me” fame) is concerned about the world in which the child will come into. The culprit for the trying times we face? The FBI’s Top Ten Most Wanted mainstay Osama bin Laden.

Spurlock decides that its up to him to find bin Laden. Armed with only questions, his journey takes him across Egypt, Morocco, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, the Gaza Strip and Pakistan.
The fact that Spurlock is leaving his wife alone for the final months of her pregnancy is the film’s main weak point. They speak on the phone and Spurlock says he wishes he could be there with her, and the viewer is left to wonder why he isn’t.

Despite his claim that he is hunting bin Laden to make the world safe for his son, there is no real reason he should be abandoning his wife when she needs her husband the most.

Desertions aside, the film takes a lighthearted approach to a serious subject. A constant, up-tempo soundtrack gives the film a rhythm not found in most documentaries.

Add that to the fact that major terrorists are animated into baseball cards, and we can see that the film does not take itself too seriously.

There is also a level of cinematography present that defies the standard documentary style. Several interesting shots of cities and people add depth to the film.

The journey itself is much more interesting than the end could ever be. Spurlock meets with professors, journalists, priests, businessmen and families across the Middle East. This allows him to get a grasp on the world bin Laden comes from.

Some devout Muslims discuss how bin Laden has perverted their religion and tainted it in the eyes of the world. Others describe how someone like bin Laden is a true savior of Islam.

The film’s strength is the people Spurlock interviews. He focuses on the common man. No generals or politicians, just the people who live every day in the chaotic Middle East.
It is interesting to see the similarities between the ghettos of the United States and the Middle East. In both, poverty is rampant and parents wish for better lives for their children.

Where people in America’s ghetto must fight against the easy riches and danger that drugs offer, Middle Eastern children must avoid the temptation of paradise and riches that Al Qaeda offers.

Many people tell Spurlock that they hold both America and bin Laden in equal contempt because they are the two factions responsible for the fighting. The only thing that people in the film have in common is their hatred of violence and those who cause it.

Spurlock’s visit to the Gaza Strip is especially interesting. He stands on the spot of land that is responsible for so much bloodshed. A poignant moment occurs when he sits in the rocket-blasted shell of an elementary school, wondering what it would be like to live in a world where this is the norm.

Anyone who is interested in the lives of people who have been involved in this conflict will enjoy the portrait painted by Spurlock. It provides a level of coverage that is untapped by the CNNs and BBCs of the world.

In the end, the film is more about the journey itself than the result. The fact that people are so similar, yet involved in such destructive conflict with each other is disheartening, yet offers hope that peace is possible.

The message of the film is universal. No one wants to bring a child into a world of violence and hatred. Despite the film’s nonchalant attitude towards the subject, there is an underlying mix of cynicism and idealism. The cynical view that people will never change is juxtaposed with a hope that one day people will get sick of fighting and simply coexist.

Rating - $9.50

Stop Loss

2008-03-28T11:47:00.000-07:00

The armed forces Stop Loss policy has been a source of controversy since the first Persian Gulf War. It is also the topic of Kimberly Peirce’s sophomore effort “Stop-Loss.” It comes almost nine years after “Boys Don’t Cry” a film that put Peirce and many of the film’s actors on the map.

In the beginning, the movie seems to accurately portray life as a soldier in Iraq. Sgt. Brandon King (Ryan Philippe) and his men are manning a checkpoint, where boredom alternates with fear, and danger waits in each approaching vehicle.

His troops consist of the testosterone charged Channing Tatum (“Coach Carter”), and Joseph Gordon-Levitt (“3rd Rock From the Sun) in his first appearance with facial hair.
After a brief firefight, the movie fast forwards to a welcome home parade, in Sgt. King’s hometown, a cliché small Texas town. The returning soldiers are glad to be home, but carry the memories of the horror they have witnessed.

As the welcome home party begins, “Stop-Loss” seems to be emerging as a gritty portrait of the reality faced by veterans when they come home. Characters get drunk and reveal the flaws that will eventually undo them. With every wild night, comes the inevitable hangover the next morning. The remaining 78 minutes is the hangover.

When the phrase “You’ve been stop-lost” is uttered, the movie begins its downward spiral. Philippe pulls a Richard Kimble, his one-armed man being a local senator who will help him avoid jail. Soon he is off on some cross-country journey where the movie completely loses itself. It’s as if the writers were unclear on what to do with Philippe’s screen time, so they cast him into various heroic molds, none of them quite sticking.

The film doesn’t exactly glorify going AWOL, but it comes pretty close to it. Especially since the movie will not let the audience like Tatum’s character, despite (and because of) the fact that he is the only one that considers making the Army part of his future. When he decides to re-enlist, he becomes the closest thing to a bad guy that exists in the film.

Its place in the political spectrum can be gleaned from the fact that Philippe utters the phrase “f@%! the President” and later quotes Sen. John Kerry, calling stop-loss a “backdoor draft.”
The characters follow the story arc of a Shakespearean tragedy, with each character undone by his flaws.

But instead of the Bard’s immortal prose, there are laughable Texas accents and an overabundance of the word ‘ain’t.’ Instead of admirable but flawed characters, there are superficial caricatures of real people.

“Stop-Loss” is blunt enough in its presentation that the audience knows what it’s supposed to feel, but it doesn’t work hard enough to make a deeper impression. It does an admirable job of trying to tackle the complexity of the issue. Ninety-eight minutes is a short amount of time to fit an analysis and verdict on the stop loss policy with deep and dynamic characters. There simply isn’t enough time to create anything more than a passing glance at who these people are.

Rating - $4.00

Introduction

1983-08-22T12:51:00.000-07:00

Hello all, my name is Alex McVeigh. I write for a weekly community newspaper in Washington, D.C.

I am a big fan of movies, and some times I even get to review them for my paper. Some of the films reviewed here will be taken from my published reviews.

I am also an active Netflix user, and I try to watch at least one movie from my queue a week (provided it's not basketball season), so I will be reviewing those movies, as well as other ones I own on here as well.

A quick word on my rating system. Since the average price for a movie ticket these days is about $10, I will rank the movies on how much they are worth. For example, Prince Caspian was rated at $5.50, because it was only worth that much.

Other movies are worth the full price of admission, and some that I review, such as The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly or Aliens are classics, and would be worth much more than the price of admission.

Also, I have tagged films by genre, rating, as well as a ringing endorsement from me about whether or not to buy it on DVD or not.

Although this is technically the first post, I have timestamped my reviews from the past year and a half, so you can go back and read my reviews on movies that have come out since March 2008.

My intention for this site is not so much that you read my reviews to see whether or not you should go see the movie. I think that's pretentious.

Rather, I would prefer you see the movie and then read my review, and then think to yourself or comment on the post what I got right, and what I didn't. Some of the posts are more formal reviews, and some will just be essays of sort about a particular film. Since most of them will contain spoilers, I suggest you see the films first, that way we're all on the same level.

I hope you enjoy.